* [PATCH] nfs/super: check NFS_CAP_ACLS instead of the NFS version
@ 2023-09-19 8:18 Max Kellermann
2023-10-04 11:36 ` Jeff Layton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Max Kellermann @ 2023-09-19 8:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Trond Myklebust, Anna Schumaker
Cc: Max Kellermann, J . Bruce Fields, stable, linux-nfs, linux-kernel
This sets SB_POSIXACL only if ACL support is really enabled, instead
of always setting SB_POSIXACL if the NFS protocol version
theoretically supports ACL.
The code comment says "We will [apply the umask] ourselves", but that
happens in posix_acl_create() only if the kernel has POSIX ACL
support. Without it, posix_acl_create() is an empty dummy function.
So let's not pretend we will apply the umask if we can already know
that we will never.
This fixes a problem where the umask is always ignored in the NFS
client when compiled without CONFIG_FS_POSIX_ACL. This is a 4 year
old regression caused by commit 013cdf1088d723 which itself was not
completely wrong, but failed to consider all the side effects by
misdesigned VFS code.
Reviewed-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@ionos.com>
---
fs/nfs/super.c | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/super.c b/fs/nfs/super.c
index 0d6473cb00cb..051986b422b0 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/super.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/super.c
@@ -1064,14 +1064,19 @@ static void nfs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, struct nfs_fs_context *ctx)
* The VFS shouldn't apply the umask to mode bits.
* We will do so ourselves when necessary.
*/
- sb->s_flags |= SB_POSIXACL;
+ if (NFS_SB(sb)->caps & NFS_CAP_ACLS) {
+ sb->s_flags |= SB_POSIXACL;
+ }
+
sb->s_time_gran = 1;
sb->s_time_min = 0;
sb->s_time_max = U32_MAX;
sb->s_export_op = &nfs_export_ops;
break;
case 4:
- sb->s_flags |= SB_POSIXACL;
+ if (NFS_SB(sb)->caps & NFS_CAP_ACLS) {
+ sb->s_flags |= SB_POSIXACL;
+ }
sb->s_time_gran = 1;
sb->s_time_min = S64_MIN;
sb->s_time_max = S64_MAX;
--
2.39.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] nfs/super: check NFS_CAP_ACLS instead of the NFS version
2023-09-19 8:18 [PATCH] nfs/super: check NFS_CAP_ACLS instead of the NFS version Max Kellermann
@ 2023-10-04 11:36 ` Jeff Layton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Layton @ 2023-10-04 11:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Max Kellermann, Trond Myklebust, Anna Schumaker
Cc: J . Bruce Fields, stable, linux-nfs, linux-kernel,
Christian Brauner
On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 10:18 +0200, Max Kellermann wrote:
> This sets SB_POSIXACL only if ACL support is really enabled, instead
> of always setting SB_POSIXACL if the NFS protocol version
> theoretically supports ACL.
>
> The code comment says "We will [apply the umask] ourselves", but that
> happens in posix_acl_create() only if the kernel has POSIX ACL
> support. Without it, posix_acl_create() is an empty dummy function.
>
> So let's not pretend we will apply the umask if we can already know
> that we will never.
>
> This fixes a problem where the umask is always ignored in the NFS
> client when compiled without CONFIG_FS_POSIX_ACL. This is a 4 year
> old regression caused by commit 013cdf1088d723 which itself was not
> completely wrong, but failed to consider all the side effects by
> misdesigned VFS code.
>
A little more than 4 years now!
> Reviewed-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@ionos.com>
> ---
> fs/nfs/super.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/super.c b/fs/nfs/super.c
> index 0d6473cb00cb..051986b422b0 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/super.c
> @@ -1064,14 +1064,19 @@ static void nfs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, struct nfs_fs_context *ctx)
> * The VFS shouldn't apply the umask to mode bits.
> * We will do so ourselves when necessary.
> */
> - sb->s_flags |= SB_POSIXACL;
> + if (NFS_SB(sb)->caps & NFS_CAP_ACLS) {
> + sb->s_flags |= SB_POSIXACL;
> + }
> +
nit: curly braces aren't needed here
> sb->s_time_gran = 1;
> sb->s_time_min = 0;
> sb->s_time_max = U32_MAX;
> sb->s_export_op = &nfs_export_ops;
> break;
> case 4:
> - sb->s_flags |= SB_POSIXACL;
> + if (NFS_SB(sb)->caps & NFS_CAP_ACLS) {
> + sb->s_flags |= SB_POSIXACL;
> + }
> sb->s_time_gran = 1;
> sb->s_time_min = S64_MIN;
> sb->s_time_max = S64_MAX;
(cc'ing Christian)
This patch may have a minor conflict with this patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/20230911-acl-fix-v3-1-b25315333f6c@kernel.org/
...but it seems like the right thing to do if POSIX ACLs are compiled
out.
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] nfs/super: check NFS_CAP_ACLS instead of the NFS version
@ 2018-01-16 17:15 Max Kellermann
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Max Kellermann @ 2018-01-16 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-fsdevel, hch, linux-nfs, trond.myklebust, gregkh
Cc: max.kellermann, linux-kernel
This sets MS_POSIXACL only if ACL support is really enabled, instead
of always setting MS_POSIXACL if the NFS protocol version
theoretically supports ACL.
The code comment says "We will [apply the umask] ourselves", but that
happens in posix_acl_create() only if the kernel has POSIX ACL
support. Without it, posix_acl_create() is an empty dummy function.
So let's not pretend we will apply the umask if we can already know
that we will never.
This fixes a problem where the umask is always ignored in the NFS
client when compiled without CONFIG_FS_POSIX_ACL. This is a 4 year
old regression caused by commit 013cdf1088d723 which itself was not
completely wrong, but failed to consider all the side effects by
misdesigned VFS code.
Signed-off-by: Max Kellermann <mk@cm4all.com>
---
fs/nfs/super.c | 7 +++++--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/super.c b/fs/nfs/super.c
index 29bacdc56f6a..fa9929723bfe 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/super.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/super.c
@@ -2345,11 +2345,14 @@ void nfs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, struct nfs_mount_info *mount_info)
if (data && data->bsize)
sb->s_blocksize = nfs_block_size(data->bsize, &sb->s_blocksize_bits);
- if (server->nfs_client->rpc_ops->version != 2) {
+ if (NFS_SB(sb)->caps & NFS_CAP_ACLS) {
/* The VFS shouldn't apply the umask to mode bits. We will do
* so ourselves when necessary.
*/
sb->s_flags |= SB_POSIXACL;
+ }
+
+ if (server->nfs_client->rpc_ops->version != 2) {
sb->s_time_gran = 1;
sb->s_export_op = &nfs_export_ops;
}
@@ -2375,7 +2378,7 @@ static void nfs_clone_super(struct super_block *sb,
sb->s_time_gran = 1;
sb->s_export_op = old_sb->s_export_op;
- if (server->nfs_client->rpc_ops->version != 2) {
+ if (NFS_SB(sb)->caps & NFS_CAP_ACLS) {
/* The VFS shouldn't apply the umask to mode bits. We will do
* so ourselves when necessary.
*/
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-10-04 11:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-09-19 8:18 [PATCH] nfs/super: check NFS_CAP_ACLS instead of the NFS version Max Kellermann
2023-10-04 11:36 ` Jeff Layton
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-01-16 17:15 Max Kellermann
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).